Renaming the "Skeptic vs. Proponent Discussions" subforum

I don't see anything wrong with "versus", either.

"Skeptics vs. [Psi] Proponents" is clear and concise, and to the point ~ that the forum is about discussing and arguing of opposing points of view, those of members skeptical of the existence of Psi, and those who know and/or believe that Psi exists.

The more I think about the title, the less I want it to change, because changing a concise title for nothing more than mostly incoherent reasons does nothing more than muddle what the forum is essentially about.

I’m not sure where that leaves posters like max, who think these phenomena exist but have developed a well-argued, workable (if disputed) mechanism.

Workable ?

[Ninshub]

Yes, can we just leave it as it is, and stop fiddling. I dunno who came up with the idea, but the front of the discussion has apparently taken place within a “founders forum” (something which I think is a problem), and consequently it’s got up a head of steam. Before reaching the rest of the forum. But why was it felt necessary to introduce the suggestion secretly first? It should have gone straight onto the main forum, where the life could have been beaten out of it quickly.

The category title has to have skeptical/skeptic in it so that it makes sense to search engines/searchers, and it’s just a fact of life that we settle our differences through conflict, changing the title won’t change that. I put my threads in there because I want them to be challenged.

Anyway, I’m more concerned with this secret founders forum having ‘stuff’ in it that affects everybody. That shouldn’t be secret. Unless you’ve got stuff you want to hide. But raising this sort of stuff in there first, where we can’t see it, is completely out of order in my view.

It's kind of natural, and in my view inescapable (?), that the admins-mods will bring up issues, ideas between themselves, as part of running the forum - like they've done from the start, i.e. what categories to create to subdivide the forum, forum rules, etc. etc. I think this thread is evidence we didn't want to ram anything down anybody's throat (?). I don't see the fuss but I hear you and I'll try to be sensitive to what you're saying.

Again, I'm fine with leaving it as it is. I said that to the others when the idea was brought up initially, that it wasn't a "biggie".

I understand the intention of reclaiming the word ‘skepitc’ But that ship has probably sailed and for the sake of search engine relavence, should be kept in some form. I’d be interested in examples of posts that depart from the original ideals of skepticism.

On a related note, it would be nice to reclaim ‘philosphy’. For the ancients philosphy was a commentary on how might live a considered, worthwhile life. It was for every man and it was useful. Compare that with the precious introspection and obtuse inaccessible academic wordplay that passes for philosophy today, and you realise the original skeptics had less to put up with.

On a related note, it would be nice to reclaim ‘philosphy’. For the ancients philosphy was a commentary on how might live a considered, worthwhile life. It was for every man and it was useful. Compare that with the precious introspection and obtuse inaccessible academic wordplay that passes for philosophy today, and you realise the original skeptics had less to put up with.

This is a curious reading of history, though I'd agree on materialists inventing torturous arguments to avoid the obvious.

I understand the intention of reclaiming the word ‘skepitc’ But that ship has probably sailed and for the sake of search engine relavence, should be kept in some form. I’d be interested in examples of posts that depart from the original ideals of skepticism.

On a related note, it would be nice to reclaim ‘philosphy’. For the ancients philosphy was a commentary on how might live a considered, worthwhile life. It was for every man and it was useful. Compare that with the precious introspection and obtuse inaccessible academic wordplay that passes for philosophy today, and you realise the original skeptics had less to put up with.

Odd that when skepticism is applied to subjects that so-called skeptics hold dear, then the verbal barbs start flying. 

By the way, introspection, despite your use of the pejorative "precious", is a valid way to think about how to live a considered, worthwhile life, isn't it?

By the way, introspection, despite your use of the pejorative "precious", is a valid way to think about how to live a considered, worthwhile life, isn't it?

Under materialism life is worthless so worrying about a worthwhile life is pointless.

[Ninshub]

On a related note, it would be nice to reclaim ‘philosphy’. For the ancients philosphy was a commentary on how might live a considered, worthwhile life. It was for every man and it was useful. Compare that with the precious introspection and obtuse inaccessible academic wordplay that passes for philosophy today, and you realise the original skeptics had less to put up with.

We're getting offtrack here (no problem, we can always separate the thread) but I gather the "obtuse inaccessible academic wordplay" refers to Continental Philosophy. But philosophy (in general) stopped being about how we live, and so forth, earlier, when it became a profession, circa Kant, is my understanding. And it just went further and further away from those concerns in the 20th century, but that's as much the fault of anglo-saxon analytic philosophy (which itself had little use for "precious introspection") as continental philosophy.

Under materialism life is worthless so worrying about a worthwhile life is pointless.

Under materialism, life has meaning and is worthwhile. I think what you are referring to is that the sort of meaning you hope for is not to be found under materialism. Similarly, the sort of meaning I hope for is not to be found under idealism. However, I hope I am tolerant and sensitive enough not to put down idealism because of that.

Linda

I don't mind the word 'sceptic' appearing in the title. I have more difficulty with the fixation which seems to afflict many suggestions, the use of the Latin 'versus', (against). How about using the word 'and'? Take the phrase "pros and cons" as a model if you like, drop whatever labels you like in there, to me it implies a meeting of minds, rather than conflict and separation which seem inherent in 'versus'.

I very much agree with you. However, I think skeptics will be treated as hostile challengers no matter how sweet the name.

Linda